By Matthew Knott in Copenhagen
After two weeks of around the clock negotiations and the participation of over a hundred of world leaders, the Copenhagen climate change summit has ended in failure, producing a flimsy political agreement far weaker than even the most pessimistic observers expected at the start of the talks.
The agreement – hastily cobbled together on the last day of the talks by 28 nations, including host Denmark, the US and Australia – drew fierce criticism by developing countries left out of the meetings, claiming rich countries had staged a “coup détat” of the UN process.
Tuvalu, Venezuela, Bolivia and several African nations had already signalled in the final official plenary session that they would not support the accord. If the deal dies on the UN conference floor – as it will if only one nation votes against it – then it esentially amounts to a glorified press release. At the time of writing it appears, after an objection by Nicaragua, that the accord will be included with the other texts as a mere “informal” or “miscellaneous” document.
Copenhagen was supposed to lay the foundations for a new international climate change treaty to be signed in Mexico next year – one that would, unlike the Kyoto Protocol, include the pledges of the world´s biggest greenhouse gas emitters, the US and China, in a legally-binding agreement.
But, in a decision that has already infuriated environmentalists around the world, the “Copenhagen Accord” does not include any mandate, or even an aspiration, to ever develop a new legally-binding climate change treaty.
The accord commits nations to keeping the global temperature rise to under two degrees, but does not specify the level of emissions reductions that will be needed to achieve this goal. A leaked UN analysis yesterday revealed that the targets currently on the table would lead to a temperature rise of over 3 degrees.
The final agreement represents a significant watering down of draft texts leaked to the media during the final day of the summit. One draft committed developed nations, as a group, to reducing their emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. Another included the goal of signing a legally-binging treaty at COP16 in Mexico. Both of these commitments were cut out of the final version.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said eleventh hour negotiations over the text by world leaders including himself, Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Nicholas Sarkozy, had saved the summit from “catastrophic collapse”.
“We have achieved genuine progress and a genuine step forward,” he told reporters. “This is the first time ever developed and developing nations have committed to a two degree Celsius rise.”
The agreement also includes the promise of mobilising $100 billion a year by 2020 to help developing countries’ mitigation and adaptation efforts.
The willingness of developing nations to open their overseas-sponsored emissions reduction activities to oversight by international bodies was also a breakthrough, he said.
The annex of the agreement lists an emissions reduction pledge of Australia of 5 to 15 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020. Mr Rudd said the final target would be announced by February.
US President Barack Obama arrived in Copenhagen early Saturday morning and quickly joined drafting discussions with other world leaders. Neither the Premier of China, nor the Prime Minister of India attended these meetings, sending diplomats and ambassadors instead.
During the afternoon Obama then held meetings with the “Basic Group” – China, India, Brasil and South Africa – who eventually agreed to sign the accord.
President Obama described the accord as a “meaningful and unprecedented” agreement to tackle climate change. Both he and Mr Rudd admitted that much work will be needed in coming years to bring commitments in line with what the science demands to avoid disastrous global warming.
Nnimmo Bassey, Chair of Friends of the Earth International, said: “Copenhagen has been an abject failure. Justice has not been done. By delaying action, rich countries have condemned millions of the world’s poorest people to hunger, suffering and loss of life as climate change accelerates.”
76 Comments
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
So it has failed? No binding emission cuts? Now these idiots can go outside and play in the snow! How ironic will it be if some of these alarmists can’t leave Copenhagen due to the ICY cold weather!!
JFPE, didn’t happen to see the story about the Russian climatologist in Far Eastern Siberia by any chance? She’s been recording temperatures there for decades, and her assessment is that the temperature rises in that region are in the order of several degrees already. Of course we all know what lies under the permafrost up there, billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas far more powerful than carbon dioxide.
Make your childish comments, if it humours you, but don’t expect the rest of us to take anything you have to say seriously.
John, fantastic comment.
Although you used the word irony incorrectly, and gave us the impression you don’t understand the concept of winter, I really liked how you used two exclamation marks to shout down the man!
My gut tells me that your gut tells you that peer reviewed science is something nerds do to make them sound better than us, and so they can mess with our lives. Well I say live how you wanna live, and bugger the rest of them!
Aussie Aussie Aussie, Oi Oi Oi!!!
I dont think the facts which are being avoided are the science, but the logical consequences. Governments are not will or able to face their electorates with the reality that this will require reduction in material consumption and that this is unavoidable now that we have reached peak everything – food, oil, land, fish, you name it. In Australia climate change is dancing around the reality that the objective is to put the coal industry substantially out of business. We need an unpopular government, and we have had one of each stripe which is led from the focus group. I suspect that the price of dealing with climate change will probably be, and this is not something I am advocating just a prediction, popular democracy.
Well said JFPE, I’ll bet CHRISTOPHER DUNNE is far more interested in his arrogant belief system than the truth.As long as it sounds semi-plausuble and from ‘authority’ he’s in.
On Mar 31, 2004 the infamous Phil Jones wrote to to an equally infamous (albeit for different if similar reasons) Michael Mann as follows:
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=407&filename=1080742144.txt
On Dec 15, 2009, it was reported that the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report “claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.”:
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration
http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html
Did anybody really think that a talk fest, from the people that have benefited most from how things are, would change how things are. Individuals need to consume less and have less children to reduce our pollution, but what the earth decides to do with us is really out of our control and the arrogant to think otherwise.
I was promised a dystopian world government. Rudd fails again.
JamesK #5
Possibly regarding the review of the paper you refer to that the quality of the science may not be very good. From the little I can glean from the rest of the (illegally obtained) email, and having not seen any of the other papers in question, it would appear that there are core statistical problems related to spatial and seasonal sampling that caused the rejection. This seems to be a fundamental problem with methodology, and not something that can be addressed by a revise and resubmit.
Or are you claiming that scientists should accept everything, however suspect into the literature? Perhaps that is acceptable practice in parts of the humanities, and something that scientists should adopt.
Which leads to the IEA piece. This is from an economic think tank specialising in fossil fuel resources, without scientific expertise in climatology. Given this simultaneous vested interest, and lack of expertise, I’m not sure that their pronouncements should be taken seriously withoug external review by a panel of real scientists.
But then again in the humanities, any old bullshit contributes to the constructed truth, so perhaps I’m wrong and it should all go into the melting pot to paralyze decision making even more than it already is …
@kdkd#7
What as opposed to Christopher Dunne’s “the story about the Russian climatologist in Far Eastern Siberia” you mean?
Unlike you I made no claims on the veracity. I merely pointed to others questions not mine.
Why not try and argue like an adult?
ABC story on PM, transcript:
SVETLANA TSYPLAKOVA (translated): Usually in December there was firm ice, and over the past two years, really firm ice has only appeared in January or perhaps at the very end of December.
SCOTT BEVAN: The results from a string of weather stations go to the meteorological centre’s head office in Arkhangelsk. Irina Grishchenko, from Russia’s Northern Hyrdometeorological Department says they’ve been recording ever-increasing temperatures and warmer weather is having an effect on the Arctic ice cover’s size and thickness.
IRINA GRISHCHENKO (translated): According to the latest research by the British scientists from Cambridge, the ice thickness is not more than 1.8 metres. So it means it doesn’t look like old ice, which would be about 3 metres thick and they made a conclusion that by 2030 there will be no ice in the Arctic in summer. That means ice-breaker-free shipping
…and from Lateline recently:
TONY JONES: Can we talk about the science of global warming and climate change now, because as we’ve gotten closer to Copenhagen, the sceptics have become much louder. There’s been a fierce backlash against the science. What do you think is going on here?
JAMES HANSEN: Well, the science, as you know, has become very clear. The evidence for climate change around the world is widespread. The Arctic Sea ice melting, glaciers receding all around the world, climate zones are shifting, the subtropics are expanding, and that’s affecting Australia, by the way, as well as the south-west United States and the Mediterranean region, and that’s a reason why we have more extremes, including heatwaves and fires.
But also, when we have rain, it is heavier, because warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour. We see the climate change all over the planet, there’s no question about that.
…but JamesK, you’re free to dispute the facts if you have evidence that any of these things aren’t happening.
Shall I hold my breath while you find some tendentious bit of argument that has no bearing on the facts?
Or should we wait until 2030 and see?
You really don’t have a very firm grasp on reality do you?
JamesK #8
Pretty worthless contribution if you’re not claiming any veracity or otherwise. The moon is made of green cheese.
Help! We are all going to die!
@kdkd#10
No it is not. Do please desist from being childish. Yours is the fallacy of demanding negative proof. I am not required to.
Sir Thomas More’s head (and body?) has no doubt turned in his grave yet again.
Both of my references call in to question the veracity of Christopher Dunne’s petulant contribution. Petulance which he has reinforced I notice.
James Hansen is the James Hansen of the “trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death” infamy.
Very scientific. Not. But petulant and fear-mongering. Indeed.
Of course other climate scientists don’t agree with Hansen:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17766
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/the_science_of_disinformation_1.html
The two IPCC recognised satellite global temperature measuring groups certainly would be at variance with Hansen’s infamously wild projections:
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3230
Climategate is in its early phase. Land temperature data from New Zealand, Darwin and Russia are now all clearly suspect. But I doubt that you are keeping up.
Steve McIntyre (ClimateAudit.org) forced Hansen’s NASA-GISS data to be corrected down last year. Hansen’s data sets are still consistently the highest of the 4 recognised global temperature groups and are widely criticised for their meta-data manipulations and the ‘heat-island’ effect.
Even the worrisome Christopher Dunne’s “Methane Beast” apparently is still not awake:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/08/the-ups-and-downs-of-methane/
http://www.co2science.org//articles/V12/N14/EDIT.php
The ‘science’ is not settled.
I know you are bitterly disappointed.
Sorry.
Thanks Matthew for your articles this last 2 weeks. Populist angles (Lomborg FFS!?) were embarrassing but you seem to know your bullsh*t too.
I think Galileo Galilei today would decide to just press on with the science despite it being heresy for Big Oil and Big Coal and their toadies selling indulgences. People like Cardinal Pell who can’t even follow the line of his own Roman Pope on climate.
I saw Penny Wong in an excruciatingly meaningless interview last Friday with Kerry O’Brien. Followed by John Connor of the Climate Institute sponsored and paid for by Wong’s ALP. We paid for this, suckers, at least 3 times: Public funding of Wong, public funding of 730. ALP funding of Connor to offset indy Greenpeace etc.
As for failure – I’m half way through season 1 (6 hours straight) of The Wire not least Stringer attending macroeconomics lecture on price inelasticity. It’s more probative of this topic than you might at first think: The appalling violence, illusion of solidarity for the Business, careerism and corrosive dishonesty. The crushing of merit. The unbridled selfishness. And that’s just the cops.
Welcome to Enclavism – we’ve been here about 5 years already. What price 5 metre sea rise by 2050? Remember that donkey in Animal Farm. That’s my relationship to this debate. My prediction – the living will envy the dead. I wonder if Bob Dylan can get that in a song for a Christmas album?
The views from some of these people here are quite simply….the saddest things I’ve ever had to read. Of course, the skeptics and deniers and those that shout with glee at the failure of Copenhagen all come from developed, wealthy, polluting states. Quite frankly, if any of us actually faced the prospect of losing our homes (like those in parts of India, Bangladesh, the Pacific Islands) because of rising sea levels, lost our livlihoods and living with the terror daily of whether we will see our children grow up and being able to support themselves, we may have a different view. But no. Once again, we argue pointless arguments against the majority of the scientific FACTS to satsify our own egos that 1) we were right and global warming is a crock) and 2) to justify our wasteful and unsustainable existance in our own consciences. Either way, it’s only the arrogance of plenty that enables these ridiculous nay sayers to emerge and dare to speak.
Once developed states are swamped by climate refugees, they may see the severity of the problem. But by then they’ll probably just play turkey shoot with them out at sea and eliminate the “problem”. And we can all go on feeling good about ourselves and our pointless wasteful materialistic lifestyle because they’ll be out of sight and out of mind.
The failure of Copenhagen is a TRAGEDY, and not one that is to be laughed at or dare I say it, celebrated. Because only the ignorant, selfish, and empathetically and emotionally incompetent could possibly see it so.
Well said Bolly, and it made me wonder what the response would be if it was discovered that a very large asteroid was headed for our little rock in space? Can you imagine Nick Minchin, “It’s just a communist plot to scare us”? Or Tony Abbott, “It’s crap”? Or the intellectually and emotionally deformed arguing that they’ve read someone on some blog who says it’s really just an error of the astronomers’ instruments and the asteroid is really chimerical?
Well, they probably would, because that’s precisely what they doing now. As you say, it’s a tragedy that Copenhagen turned into bunfight, and only the “ignorant, selfish, and empathetically and emotionally incompetent” could find any satisfaction in that.
Rather than worrying about the climate change deniers, we should examine the real problem.
Almost all at Copenhagen ACCEPTED climate change. Rudd has said some great words of why it is vital that we act.
The major problem is that when it comes to actions, Rudd, Wong, Obama, etc all fail.
What is even worse is that even though Australia was a force towards inaction at Copenhagen, the majority of Australian’s have swallowed Rudd’s spin, and think that he was pushing for real action.
When future generations look back on us, I think they will not blame the climate change deniers, but rather those like Rudd and Obama that spoke well on the need for action on climate change, but failed to act.
Actually I was just thinking, a climate strike is going to be needed in developed countries.
It would take alot of preparation. If say 60% of people agree it’s a major problem and a good proportion decide to strike on a working day, then everything stops, which is good for the planet and sort of helps the ‘leaders’ focus some.
But it has to be a big stop work, at least say 1/3 of the workforce? It needs to be international also. Big enough to provide protection. It would likely affect mostly the professional classes more educated about the issues, maybe.
The first successful one would get the ball rolling. It’s a natural progression from lights out Earth Hour.
……………………………….
Additionally if you look at the front web page of the New York Times and Washington Post you will see that USA healthcare bill and a big snow storm is the leading news domestically. Tells the story.
With the exception of Tom McLoughlin, it’s just the usual drivel from the ultimate shallow minded egoists here whose real but silent catch cry is “look at me I care”. Self-centred tossers all.
The banning of DDT by the UN after pressure from environmentalists caused the number of deaths from malaria to go up from 50,000 to a million a year and stay there for 40 years. Until on September the 15th 2006, Dr. Arata Kochi of the World Health Organization said “Normally in this field, science comes second and politics comes first. But we will now take a stand on the science and the data, and he ended that ban on DDT and made it once again the front line of defense against the malaria mosquito.”
Any of the likely agreements in Copenhagen would have ensured ongoing victimhood and poverty for developing nations whilst within developed nations the status quo would
have solidified.
Thank God for the aspirational developing countries.
JamesK….seriously screw loose. “Shallow minded egoists” would probably be elsewhere right now mate not here trying to discuss a very serious matter. “self centred tossers”…..not only are you offesive you are seriously insane. You think that the banning of DDT is the reason for the increase in malaria deaths? Well its use is the reason for the ongoing deformities seen in Vietnam and wherever else the damn thing was used. You are narrow minded and shallow.
@Tom McLoughlin “What price 5 metre sea rise by 2050?”
I’ll give you 1000/1 on that. Get a grip, and a clue.
Mark Duffett,
On the other hand a 0.8-2.0 metre sea level rise by 2100 is also a fairly serious concern.
JamesK, your grip on reality is slipping even further; DDT?
My god, what a segue from climate change, but here we go: DDT was mostly withdrawn from use because the mosquito populations on which it was used, did what all organisms do ie evolve, and became mostly resistant.
Biology 101, JK, but hard to grasp for you I know.
It’s also the case that most malarial deaths are in sub-Saharan Africa where DDT was not effective anyway, due to the continuous breeding cycles of the Anopheles.
Its continued, albeit limited use, rather than wholesale indiscriminate use, is being better managed as one of a suite of treatments, but the main push now is on the disease mostly, and not eradication of the vector.
Now, I’m still waiting for your evidence that quite rapid climate change is not, in fact occurring, or did you think your diversion into an unrelated topic would somehow distract me?
Come on, put up, or waffle on? Which is it?
@CHRISTOPHER DUNNE
You’re “still waiting” apparently.
Why?
Did you not bother to read my references the most obvious of which is satellite global temperature measurement data assessment?
Energy & Environment · Vol. 20, No. 7, 2009
Loehle, Craig. 2009. Trend analysis of satellite global temperature data.
CONCLUSIONS
“Analysis of the satellite data shows a statistically significant cooling trend for the past
12to 13years, with it not being possible to reject a flat trend (0 slope) for 16 years.
This is a length of time at which disagreement with climate models can no longer be
attributed to simple LTP. On the other hand, studies cited herein have documented a
50-70 year cycle of climate oscillations overlaid on a simple linear warming trend since
the mid-1800s and have used this model to forecast cooling beginning between 2001
and 2010, a prediction that seems to be upheld by the satellite and ocean heat content
data. Other studies made this same prediction of transition to cooling based on solar
activity indices or from ocean circulation regime changes. In contrast, the climate
models predict the recent flat to cooling trend only as a rare stochastic event. The
linear warming trend in these models that is obtained by subtracting the 60-70 yr cycle,
while unexplained at present, is clearly inconsistent with climate model predictions
because it begins too soon (before greenhouse gases were elevated) and does not
accelerate as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate. This model and the empirical
evidence for recent cooling thus provide a challenge to climate model accuracy.”
Please tell us what your EVIDENCE that man made catastrophic global warming is actually occurring (no computer model predictions please)?
wrt DDT:
“Deaths from malaria fell by more than 40 percent over five years by handing out insecticide-treated mosquito nets, U.N. and Kenyan officials said Thursday.
Experts hope to replicate the success throughout Africa. An estimated 700,000 to 2.7 million people die of malaria each year, 75 percent of them African children, and tens of millions of people suffer chronically from the debilitating disease, even though it is preventable and curable.” – TOM MALITI, Associated Press 7:35 PM EDT, August 16, 2007
Study: DDT needed in Africa
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/sep/15/20060915-041259-6977r/
“Help save African babies as you are helping to save the environment,” pleaded Dr. Arata Kochi, director of the WHO’s malaria department. “We must take a position based on the science and the data,” Dr. Kochi said. “One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual house spraying.”
JamesK:
Energy and environment is an extremely suspect journal. It publishes lots of low quality stuff as it’s motivated by political point scoring rather than scientific discovery. Reading the abstract and your conclusion, the authors appear to be trying to hide their rather weak findings, then over-egg them with a more strident than justified conclusion.
The reporting in the article you mention (available here is pretty poor. Although they claim to detect a statistically significant cooling trend over a short time frame, this would appear to be consistent with there being oscillations in the annual temperature superimposed on top of a long term warming trend.
Added to this the “Statistically significant trend” they detect is for a very short period of time, for one set of the sattelite observations (RSS). Effectively what this paper does is perform about 800 statistical tests and find that about 30 of them are statistically significant. You can see this in Figure 2 on page 1090. Given this, the probability of finding a small number of significant data points is pretty much 100%, so their very weak finding is rather unsurprising. It appears to correspond to the years immediately proceeding 1998, but this short term “trend” (quotes added to indicate sarcasm) is no longer there as the effect of outlying observations, and continued global warming continues.
Let’s deal with the DDT stuff separately. Apparently you can’t tell the difference between broad scale environmental spraying (which for example did eradicate malaria from Bali last century, and was used for agricultural purposes in the past) with the occasional use indoors (biannualy) for treated mosquito nets and similar purposes.
There is a clear difference. Unlike the previous Energy and Environment paper this is not complicated stuff, so it’s less easy to mislead.
Thanks kdkd, I don’t have to bother as you’ve covered the essentials.
me #24
eww. nasty incoherent writing error. should be:
@kdkd
You keep missing the point.
I do not need to prove that AGW is false.
I need only provide enough evidence to question those that assert it is true.
I have.
Apparently it was too much to hope Christopher Dunne might finally bother to engineer an argument.
He certainly he hasn’t thus far but that hasn’t prevented him pathetically attempting to deride first JFPE and then me with his intellectually hollow condescending and elitist claptrap.
err JamesK #28
Your argument appears to be insane. Here’s why:
If the evidence points to the conclusion that AGW is 95% likely to be a catastrophic problem by the end of the century, and a 5% chance that it’s not (which is roughly in line with what the available evidence suggests).
As far as I can see you are claiming that 5% is greater than or equal to 95%. Which is insane.
Or perhaps there’s an interpretation of your comment that’s not barking mad. Can’t see it myself though.
@21 kdkd exactly, which is why there’s no need for Tom McLoughlin to indulge in such fantastic exaggeration.
@kdkd
That assertion by the IPCC is one of the prime reasons I first questioned them.
I am scientifically trained and that particular claim from the IPCC that you are recycling is utter nonsense.
I especially am not claiming that I am in some imaginary 5% camp.
I note you say: “Energy and environment is an extremely suspect journal.”
Really? I’ll bet you got that nonsense from Wikipedia.
Now that really is suspect and unlike E&E not peer reviewed.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx#ixzz0aApCEqRz
The point is you can only cite the IPCC in support of your assertion of catastrophic man made global warming (or if you’re Christopher Dunne piffle spouted by Tony Jones and his mad leftist guests).
Mark #30
Fair enough. I’ve found with the lunatic fringe it’s worthwhile to try to express oneself precisely and unambiguously. Otherwise, if you accidentally leave a shoe lace undone, they’ll claim that you’ve just proved enough rope with which to hang the entire global warming movement.
Actually they do it anyway, but leaving no wriggle room exposes them as worthless lunatics more quickly.
JamesK.
Actually I read the paper myself, found where the results that made the core conclusion were and evaluated them using my own statistical expertise. Along the way I was extremely disappointed with the poor quality of presentation of the statistics, seeing as it was core to their argument. Very poor quality stuff.
By the way Energy and Environment is not listed in the ARC’s journal quality list (australian journal quality listing), neither is it listed in the ISI Journal Citation reports (international listing), indicating it’s quality is regarded as piss poor.
Following on from claiming my ability to evaluate the evidence is somehow suspect, you then launch into paranoid drivel which I can safely ignore.
You delusionals certainly have your modus operandi all set out. Paranoid delusion, weird circular logic, and ad hominem attacks. Certainly beats looking at the actual evidence.
Oh yeah:
That’s no assertion that’s sound theory based on climate observations, reconstructions, and a whole bunch of well understood scientific theories which have been well established for up to 200 years.
Your delusional drivel is easy to call out.
@kdkd
You are utterly dishonest.
JamesK: #35
Baseless assertion. You clearly have nothing worthwhile to contribute, so you resort to a ridiculous assertion. Now that’s baseless.
@kdkd
You’re no scientist. You’re no statistician.
You are a liar intent on denying the obvious like a child defiantly lying in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
Pretty pathetic in short.
JamesK #37
Funny stuff. Pathetic indeed.
Note to self. Must tear up all qualifications, resign from job and inform my statistican friends that I am no longer available for contract work when I get up in the morning.
1000:1 price on 5 m sea rise by 2050 says Mark Duffet. He also says get a grip. Get a clue.
How reassuring.
Hansen says in a paper about 2 years back that it could be tens of metres by 2100 if various tipping points flip the temperature control. Who really doubts those tippings points won’t happen. Methane in tundra, clathrates in ocean floors.
With Enclavism to follow? Of course it will.
I blogged about this here:
…………………………
Monday, 21 May 2007
Do the math – 5 metre sea rise in 90 years on a non linear ice shelf collapse
Mood: lazy
Topic: globalWarming
15 May 2007 An interview with renowned climate scientist James Hansen | [from Grist env web site]
“I’ve actually written a paper and submitted it called “Scientific Reticence and Sea Level Rise” [PDF], because it just seemed to me that there was a gap between what scientists really thought and what was in the public knowledge in regards to ice sheet stability and sea level rise.”
at the pdf [bold added] dated 23rd March 2007
“Under BAU forcing in the 21st century, sea level rise undoubtedly will be dominated by a third term (3) ice sheet disintegration. This third term was small until the past few years, but it is has at least doubled in the past decade and is now close to 1 mm/year, based on gravity satellite measurements discussed above. As a quantitative example, let us say that the ice sheet contribution is 1 cm for the decade 2005-2015 and that it doubles each decade until the West Antarctic ice sheet is largely depleted.
That time constant yields sea level rise of the order of 5 m this century. Of course I can not prove that my choice of a 10 year doubling time for non-linear response is accurate, but I am confident that it provides a far better estimate than a linear response for the ice sheet component of sea level rise.”
Dr James Hansen NASA.
………………………………………..
and here:
………………
Thursday, 21 June 2007
Top scientists give fair warning on sea rise, what about politicians?
Mood: don’t ask
Topic: globalWarming
Building on ABC World Today here:
UN accused of underestimating sea change/ The World Today – Wednesday, 20 June , 2007 12:34:00:
“The scientists, including Dr James Hansen from NASA, say the United Nations reports have grossly underestimated the scale of sea-level rises that are likely this century.
Writing in the peer-reviewed British journal, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, they predict that sea levels will rise not by 40 centimetres by the turn of the century, but by several metres, as Karen Barlow reports.
KAREN BARLOW: The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is being charged with grossly underestimating the impact of global warming.
The international grouping of scientists and policymakers predicted in February that sea levels would increase between 18 and 59 centimetres this century.
The Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Dr James Hansen, reports in a peer-reviewed paper that the IPCC report left out vital information in its calculations.
JAMES HANSEN: They actually only give a prediction for the thermal expansion of the ocean and the contribution of alpine glaciers, but the big issue is the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica, especially West Antarctica, because that’s beginning to lose mass, and it is situated on bedrock, which is below sea level, so it’s potentially unstable and could give a very large sea level rise.
KAREN BARLOW: Ice sheet instability was mentioned briefly in the IPCC report, but Dr James Hansen says it wasn’t calculated as it is difficult to predict.
He says he has no such misgivings.
JAMES HANSEN: We know enough from the Earth’s history to say that if we follow business as usual path, with C02 emissions, that we guarantee instability of the West Antarctic ice sheet, with sea level rise eventually of several metres. And I would be very surprised if we didn’t get one or two metres at least of sea level rise this century.
………………………..
I also blogged on this a while back to quote Bill McKibben 2nd Jan 2008, in turn quoting NASA’s Hansen:
“However, in the past five years scientists began to worry that the planet was reacting more quickly than they had expected to the relatively small temperature increases we have already seen. The rapid melt of most glacial systems, for instance, convinced many that 450 parts per million was a more prudent target. That is what the European Union and many big environmental groups have been proposing in recent years, and the economic modelling makes clear that achieving it is possible, though the chances diminish with every new coal-fired power plant.
But the data just keep getting worse. The news this (northern) autumn that Arctic sea ice was melting at an off-the-charts pace, and data from Greenland suggesting that its giant ice sheet was starting to slide into the ocean, make even 450 look too high. Consider: we are already at 383 parts per million, and it is knocking the planet off kilter in substantial ways.
So, what does that mean? Hansen says it means we have gone too far.
“The evidence indicates we’ve aimed too high – that the safe upper limit for atmospheric CO2 is no more than 350 ppm,” he said after his presentation.
The last time the Earth warmed two or three degrees – which is what 450 parts per million implies – sea levels rose by tens of metres, something that would shake the foundations of the human enterprise should it happen again.”
…………………
Having suffered malaria twice after an adventure in PNG in 1990 I find reference to that killer as a tangent intriguing. My experience was no sleep or food for 5 days and six nights. Rough. But here’s the thing – as tropical conditions move south we can expect malaria in Australia soon enough. One hopes it’s vivox which was bad enough, not falciparum species which is lethal.
5 hours to go for 2nd season of The Wire. McNulty is “a gaping *rsehole” according to his boss Major Rawls, but he’s “all police” according to coppers Bunk and Freeman.
Great show. 3rd season is even better apparently. Perfect antitode to the depressing topic du jour.
Reminds of song by Randy Newman called Baltimore (where The Wire is set):
‘h*oker on a corner waiting for a train, she hides her face and she hides her eyes, because the city is dying and she don’t know why’.
Welcome to the future?
In short careerism and corrupt grasping is so last century when an economy hits the (ecological?) wall. Sustainability is far more noble and inspired goal than crude careerism.
“…Note to self. Must tear up all qualifications, resign from job and inform my statistican friends that I am no longer available for contract work when I get up in the morning…”
A statistician.
That explains the endless comedy routine then.
Statistically Copenhagen was a failure.
Statistically it was always going to fail.
Oh the laughs we had this past weekend.
Most Deluded Mama #42
It’s funnier when we laugh at you, because you seem totally unaware of the very black comedy that you’re providing with your anti-science anti-everything routine.
You’re a fraud kdkd. You’re dishonest. You’re a liar. You’re a charlatan.
Show us your staistical calculations that demonstrate Loehle’s paper is rubbish.
He’s prolifically published and even Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate shows him infinitely more respect than you in an essay criticising one of Loehle’s 2007 papers.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?s=%22Energy+and+Environment%22&submit=Search&qt=&q=&cx=009744842749537478185%3Ahwbuiarvsbo&client=google-coop-np&cof=GALT%3A808080%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A34374A%3BVLC%3AAA8610%3BAH%3Aleft%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BALC%3A66AA55%3BLC%3A66AA55%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A66AA55%3BGIMP%3A66AA55%3BFORID%3A11%3B&searchdatabase=site
Quite unlike you even Gavin would admit that he’s no statistician……
Unfortunately and again unlike you Steve McIntyre is.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/12/climate-reconstructions-loehle-vs.html
http://climateaudit.org/2007/12/07/realclimate-on-loehle/
http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/20/loehle-proxies-2/
http://climatesci.org/2009/03/24/new-paper-on-ocean-heat-content-changes-by-craig-loehle/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/02/anomalous-spike-in-ocean-heat-content/
http://climateaudit.org/2008/11/30/criag-loehle-on-the-divergence-problem/
http://climateaudit.org/2008/11/30/gavin-schmidt-and-uniquely-oriented-speleothems/
@JamesK
Here is the major flaw in your argument- given the consequences of AGW you do not just need to put doubt on the concept, you need to completely refute it. Anything less and the risk is to great.
So if we are to follow your line of reasoning, there is doubt that AGW is real (as there can be no control experiment it can never be proven 100% anyway) therefore we do not progress towards a solution. If you are right, and the bulk of the science says otherwise, no harm no foul; but if you are wrong….
And for this reason you are a fool.
JamesK:
It’s clear from figure 2 as I showed you before that the only significant cooling trend was in the immediate aftermath of the 1998 temperature outlier, and then only for one of the satellite data sets, and only for a short period of time. No lying here. The fact that your conclusion is not correct is either fraudluent, or self deception, I guess it’s up to the reader to chose.
Here is a little description of E&E that is relevant. And here’s the reevant quote:
What’s with the bombarding with links of questionable relevance. I scarcely have time for your crap without going off and reading a bunch of dubiously relevant stuff.
Sorry Oldskool but you are completely wrong.
Man made (or not) runaway global warming is not the fact.
It is based on a complex theory (not a single theory and all with many assumptions) that on some computer models is projected to cause runaway global warming.
Yours is the fallacy of demanding negative proof of me of a complex computer modeling projection of an unproven complex theory (in an open system).
That is nonsensical.
It all comes down to accepting the IPCC.
And they say that it is too complex to explain.
I don’t believe and that’s not because of some matter of principal.
Some seriously respected scientists deny the theory. I do agree that most, although perhaps to lesser extent than the fearmongering IPCC, do accept it.
However I see many blatantly unscientific remarks by supposed scientists. I see dissenting scientists railroaded and abused. I see illegality and unethical behaviour. I see pecuniary and power vested interests. All prior to Climategate.
Michael Mann would be unpublishable and unemployed in any other scientific discipline.
James Hansen is clearly rabidly biased where efforts to be impartial are the sine quo non of a true scientist. He has been scaremongering for 30 years. Initially that we were entering an ice age! He is also head of one of the two recognised land based groups charged with ‘measuring’ global temperature. The other is the Hadley Centre at East Anglia.
Phil Jones may even be criminally charged.
I have no time for lying charlatans. I hope neither do you.
An addendum @ Oldschool.
You’ll notice I don’t deride the person who takes their role of citizen seriously and reads up and considers. Tom McLoughlin has radically different views on this to me. Unlike the majority here his view is not a means to some ‘progressive’ elitist end.
In fact I note he is derided by the same cast that slime me.
I can’t prove nor disprove. Otherwise I would make more than Gore’s US$ billions.
Most of this is not science unfortunately. It’s a belief system. Science itself has been harmed dreadfully I suspect.
JamesK
post #48 is incoherent and delusional.
post #49 is plain weird
Which is why when I read the paper you cited and clearly showed why the conclusions were being mis-stated, I got a face full.
This psychopathology of delusion is quite interesting in a way. But I’d rather constructive discussion
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All